Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Independence Day Is Hard On Presidents.


Subdeacon Joe

Recommended Posts

We all know that both T. Jefferson and John Adams died on Independence Day, 1826, the last two of the original band of rebels who declared our independency from England.  James Monroe died five years later, Independence Day, 1831.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Bad Bascomb, SASS # 47,494 said:

:ph34r:  Joe.....you tryin' to get my hopes up?

 

 

Good lord,  NO!!!!!!  Key-riste!   Think who takes the reins if Blast Away Joe shuffles off his mortal coil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did any VP’s go the same day? 

 

IT could happen…it could HAPPEN…It COULD happen…


 

 

 

 

 

 

Yeah, I’m not convinced either…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

 

 

Good lord,  NO!!!!!!  Key-riste!   Think who takes the reins if Blast Away Joe shuffles off his mortal coil.


It’s somewhat comforting to see that the USA can still function without either a competent President or Vice President.  For a while at least.  Perhaps they are not as important as we have been lead to think.  Harry Truman once said his job was encouraging others to do what they should be doing anyway, or something close to that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Holy ****!
I just looked up the line of succession should something go very very wrong with the President. 
 

I wish Joe Biden good health and a long life….(yes, I can’t believe I am saying it either)

 

From Wikipedia - it was easier just to make a photo. 
 

D88DF6E2-FB77-4B1F-96E9-2873E5B28B1E.thumb.png.05e178824be65cebce79baf42d323948.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

 

 

Good lord,  NO!!!!!!  Key-riste!   Think who takes the reins if Blast Away Joe shuffles off his mortal coil.

It is a problem...IF it does happen...Who does she bring in for VP job after moving up....Stacey whats her name????

 

I am worried...

 

Texas Lizard

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Biden will step down in February of 2023. That Harris takes over with less than 2 years to serve. A President can only serve 10 years total. That's why rigging elections is so important to them. In that time at least 1 or 2 Supreme Court vacancies will occur.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awe quit worrying about it. No matter what, it’s gonna suck so just make the best of it. 
Worrying causes stress. Stress shortens one’s life. We need to live as long as possible so we can make these moron’s lives as miserable as we can without adversely affecting our own health. 
 

Okay?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jefferson and Adams were the last surviving Presidents from the Revolutionary War Patriots.  They had become bitter rivals later in their political lives.  Adams was a Federalist and Jefferson was a Democratic-Republican.  Although they had somewhat reconciled later in life, both wanted to outlive the other.  I couldn't remember the exact details of the day they both died; a quick internet search refreshed my memory.

 

 

"On July 4, 1826, at the age of 90, Adams lay on his deathbed while the country celebrated Independence Day. His last words were, "Thomas Jefferson still survives." He was mistaken: Jefferson had died five hours earlier at Monticello at the age of 83."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as Speaker of the House is concerned, it will be interesting to see what happens after next year's mid-term elections.  If nine or, better ten, Democrat seats in the house were to flip, a different Speaker could take the stand. Colorado itself is in the process of re-districting after adding an 8th congressional district per the 2020 census.  Don't know what that portends so far as the political "color" of the state will be.  Probably depends on the gerrymandering that goes on...:unsure:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Trailrider #896 said:

Colorado itself is in the process of re-districting after adding an 8th congressional district per the 2020 census. 

 

The House needs to add about 1000 seats.  It was 1911 (proposed in 1910) that the House fixed the number of seats at 435.  We had 45 states and a population of around 90,000,000.  We've added 5 states and more than tripled our population.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

 

The House needs to add about 1000 seats.  It was 1911 (proposed in 1910) that the House fixed the number of seats at 435.  We had 45 states and a population of around 90,000,000.  We've added 5 states and more than tripled our population.   


Please no.  Just no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Subdeacon Joe said:

 

It would increase the representation of the people and decrease the power of the members of the House and the power of lobbyists. 


Then let’s just do away with the House of Representatives and allow every legal citizen to vote on every bill before it goes to the Senate.

 

(when I started writing the above it was going to be sarcasm, but actually I kinda like the idea.  I don’t feel like I have any influence at all now.  At least I would have a tiny influence if I could vote on every bill.  It would cut down on the regional pork and favors.  Yes, it would likely cause paralysis, but is that really a bad thing?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, J-BAR #18287 said:

Then let’s just do away with the House of Representatives and allow every legal citizen to vote on every bill before it goes to the Senate.

 

Only if it required 2/3 to pass.

 

58 minutes ago, J-BAR #18287 said:

Yes, it would likely cause paralysis, but is that really a bad thing?)

 

Not a bad thing at all.   After all,  our system was set up to not do things quickly.   That was why the Senate was the house of the States and the House is supposedly the People's House, and then the executive branch to further gum up the works.

 

But think of the gridlock of 1400 members of the lower house.   Likely there would be 4 or more parties which would mean that there would have to be coalition building. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Subdeacon Joe said:

 

Only if it required 2/3 to pass.

 

 

Not a bad thing at all.   After all,  our system was set up to not do things quickly.   That was why the Senate was the house of the States and the House is supposedly the People's House, and then the executive branch to further gum up the works.

 

But think of the gridlock of 1400 members of the lower house.   Likely there would be 4 or more parties which would mean that there would have to be coalition building. 

 

2/3 is fine with me.

 

Keep the Electoral College as it is for Presidential Elections, of course.

 

Go back to having Senators chosen by State Legislatures like the Constitution was originally written, instead of electing them by popular vote.

 

When the Constitution was created, information traveled at the speed of a horse.  With instantaneous communication that we have today, each citizen could be their own representative.

 

I like it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, J-BAR #18287 said:

Keep the Electoral College as it is for Presidential Elections, of course.

 

My Senators are pushing hard to eliminate the filibuster (Padilla even claiming that it was a RAAAACIST  post- Civil War,  Jim Crow invention), and I keep posting on their social media sites that we have the filibuster (from about 1806, first recorded use 1839) for the same reason that each State has 2 members of the Senate. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Outlaw political parties.

 

Democrat congressman Joe Blow does not vote the way his constituents wish him to vote, which is what his constituents put him in Congress for. No, he votes the way the Democrat power base tells him to. Everyone knows this. Oh no the house is 48% Republican and 52% Democrat. All kinds of terrible anti-gun bills will be passed because Democrats want guns to be outlawed. Alas and alack.

 

Oh wait, we had a new election. Now it's 51% Republican and 49% Democrat. We are safe for a little while.

 

What do you suppose Congress critters would do if they could actually vote the way their constituents wanted, and not the way the Party bosses told them to?

 

Then go with a one 6-year term limit. Have an election every 2 years, elect a third of the congress every two years. Since they could not be re-elected, they might actually get some work done instead of trying for campaign contributions so they can get reelected next time. Lobbyists would disappear, because without being able to offer campaign contributions for the Congress critter's vote, what good would they be?

 

And lastly, make Congress stop doing everything they do EXCEPT for making laws. That's what they're supposed to be doing. Not holding trials (McCarthy witch hunts, Mafia Rico cases, Ollie North). Not giving bread and circuses to the proletariat. Making laws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Trailrider #896 said:

As far as Speaker of the House is concerned, it will be interesting to see what happens after next year's mid-term elections.  If nine or, better ten, Democrat seats in the house were to flip, a different Speaker could take the stand. Colorado itself is in the process of re-districting after adding an 8th congressional district per the 2020 census.  Don't know what that portends so far as the political "color" of the state will be.  Probably depends on the gerrymandering that goes on...:unsure:

The current count for the HoR is 220 to 211, with 4 absent (2 R, 2D, 1 of each dead and 1 of each resigned) so it takes only 5 flipped right now, if the 2 R'S and 2 D'S are replaced with the same then it still only takes 5 fliped to take back the house.  Then if Grandpa Gropes goes article 25 and VP Knee Pads gets promoted, the house can force the selection of a G. Ford-like milquetoast VP.  Likewise their agenda comes to a complete halt once they lose the house or Senate.  Senate would be significant to stop judges and appointees, house to take back the budget and defund all the crap they think they want to spend money on.  

 

An Article Five Convention to enact Congressional term limits by Amendment, a Balanced Budget Amendment, and eliminate the 17th Amendment (Senators go back to being state gov't selected, not popular vote) would eliminate almost all of the issues we are struggling with these days, undoing almost every progressive/Marxist aspect since 1917. 

 

That would be a really remarkable turn of events, but I'm not sure just how we can force the issue.

 

Hope springs ever anew . . .

 

SC

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, J-BAR #18287 said:


Then let’s just do away with the House of Representatives and allow every legal citizen to vote on every bill before it goes to the Senate.

 

(when I started writing the above it was going to be sarcasm, but actually I kinda like the idea.  I don’t feel like I have any influence at all now.  At least I would have a tiny influence if I could vote on every bill.  It would cut down on the regional pork and favors.  Yes, it would likely cause paralysis, but is that really a bad thing?)

im in favor for all the same reasoning yet we need the balance of power in washington - it has become way to much of a swamp of political animals , but then - if the citizens had the say maybe that might change the landscape 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Pat Riot, SASS #13748 said:

And remove the ability for agencies to create laws. 

im all for this - they have not got that constitutional right in my reading 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.